During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the [same-sex marriage] issue. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is willing to abide by a decision by the Commons to let the current law stand.

So does that mean that, if this free vote fails, Steve is prepared to let the matter drop permanently? Because, say the Tories (God help us all) win a majority in the next election. Will Steve look at that majority and think, "Hey, a majority. I'll bet it'll work this time."

Or can someone pin him down and ask him point-blank whether, if this free vote fails, he's done with it. For good and forever.

Of course, he could make a promise but, as I've already pointed out, we all know what those are worth.

SLIGHTLY CONFUSED AFTERTHOUGHTS: I'm puzzled by PMS's position that, while he's going to hold a free vote on SSM, "he is willing to abide by a decision by the Commons to let the current law stand."

I find this odd. I'm not really used to the image of the Prime Minister of Canada announcing a free vote on a topic on which he allegedly has no opinion. What is the point of holding such a free vote when you've already announced ahead of time that you're just fine with the situation the way it is? This would seem to be a particularly unproductive exercise for Canada's Parliament.

More to the point, what is Harper's position on SSM? I'm assuming all you're going to get out of him is that he promised a free vote on the subject so he's going to hold one. (You know, like he promised he wasn't going to fuck with income trusts and, sure enough, ... um, wait ... bad example. Never mind.)

So will any journalist have the cojones to ask PMS to his face how he wants SSM to be resolved? Yes, I'm sure he's going to be as uninformative as possible and just say he's allowing a vote but, theoretically, if it was entirely within Harper's power to overturn SSM, would he choose to do that? I don't think that's an unfair question.

If Harper is going to waste everyone's time re-opening this debate, I think he owes everyone at least his personal opinion on the subject.

All eyes are on Amman as President Bush meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki looking for solutions to the political and military morass in Iraq.

Prospects for the already-delayed meeting were put into further doubt when al-Maliki canceled a presummit dinner with Bush. But White House Spokesperson Dan Bartlett denied there was a snub, saying it was nothing more then a schedule change.

"We have increasing violence in Anbar province, a growing insurgency and now, people being dragged from mosques and burned alive in the street so this summit meeting can't possibly come soon enough for ... damn! Did I say Wednesday? Sorry, my mistake, can't make Wednesday. How about Friday? Does Friday work for you?"

The Republicans' senatorial campaign arm, which lagged behind other national party committees in fundraising the past two years, emerged from the Nov. 7 election in debt and is soliciting donations to get out of the red.

In an urgent appeal to donors this week, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, the chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, beseeched contributors to "help us retire our debt."

"If we let this debt linger, it will cripple our efforts to recruit great candidates for the next election and begin our drive to win the one additional seat we need to regain the Senate majority," Dole wrote.

No fear, Liddy -- Dianne should be showing up on your doorstep any day now to help out. It's not like she has a full schedule around here anymore.

And if that fails, well, you might try to suck some money out of this.

Just when you think it's not physically possible for the Blogging Tories to get any denser as a collective, well, they can still surprise you. Take, for example, "Conservative Life," who blogs on global warming but without taking the time to actually understand it 'cuz that would be, you know, hard work:

How come whenever we have a hot summer day I have to endure listening to leftist proclaim that the sky is falling. But when Alberta is experiencing its coldest spell in 100 years I find out about it on an American news source.

Apparently, on CL's planet, a nasty cold spell is all that's necessary to make fun of that whole "global warming" silliness. Just as apparently, CL has never taken the time to figure out that one of the proposed consequences of global warming is more frequent weather extremes, as Tim Thompson explains here:

... let me point out that global warming is a globally averaged phenomenon. That means that some places will get colder, while some places get warmer, with the global average getting warmer. Furthermore, there are obvious & well known cycles in nature, and no doubt others that are not obvious & not known (yet) ... I think the overall effect of global warming is most easily seen in the extremes; cold places get colder, warm places get warmer, and where the coldest & warmest places are will change as air mass motions change. But there are significant effects in nature, from feedback between oceans & atmosphere, to unexpected solar cycles, all of which need to be studied & understood.

But one need not take Thompson's word for anything. You can take the time to do an online search for some combination of "global warming" and "weather extremes" to see for yourself. Or you can become a member of the Blogging Tories and stay stupid.

The choice is entirely up to you.LIES, DAMNED LIES AND WANKER STATISTICS. It's always amusing (and a bit painful) to watch the residents of Wankerville twist themselves inside out to ignore what the rest of us would see as obvious statistical trends. Take, for instance, this graph of the U.S. deficit (explained here):

Now, you and I (our fundamental properties being that we are not clinically insane) would look at that graph and think, "Hmmmmm ... I see a definite pattern here."

Your typical wanker, on the other hand (based on his views on global warming), would look at the same graph and proclaim, "Well, see, there's that increase in 1997 when Clinton was president so we really can't say anything about trends, can we? So there."

And that's when having a quiet conversation with your cat suddenly seems intellectual by comparison.

Those of you who saw the movie "Airplane" will remember the scene where a woman passenger is getting hysterical, and other people on board line up, not to try to console her, but to slap her upside the head to shut her up.

Apparently, if you want a piece of Canada's Mark Steyn, you'll have to stand in line there, too.

But Commander Codpiece is not going to take this lying down as he raises in a big way, appointing a new chief of family planning at the Department of Health and Human Services who is an avowed pro-lifer who does not believe in birth control and is convinced there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

You have to admit, that last appointment is going to be tough to beat in terms of sheer, unadulterated wingnuttery. Steve? Your move.

THE HYPOCRISY! THE HYPOCRISY! As thwap points out, government propaganda masquerading as news was a regular feature of the Bush administration. Recall, if you will, the embarrassing cases of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus. And those were just the ones who got caught.

First things first -- all readers are now welcome to weigh in on the inaugural CC wanker challenge here. Now that we've had a couple responses from the loyal opposition, everyone's welcome to play.

But what's more interesting is a real rarity in the Canadian blogosphere -- civility. Over here, Robert makes a post, Canada's lone remaining thoughtful conservative Olaf asks an appropriate question, and Ti-Guy politely provides the answer. This is an ugly trend. If it keeps up, I may have to stop referring to Steve Janke as a "dumbass."

Psyche! Just kidding on that last part. Steve will always be a dumbass.

And now that the voters in London North Centre have spoken, Dianne Haskett is free to drag her worthless, carpetbagging, neo-con ass back to Washington. And, as a favour, maybe she can take that sorry hack Michael Ignatieff with her when she goes.

Gosh, it wasn't all that long ago that I suggested a whole new neo-con talking point regarding "Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck", where GOP Rep. Chris Shays (R-Clusterfuck Apologist) spake thusly of the clusterfuck:

"Well, the problem is we’re a divided nation. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis and we’re gonna have to find a bipartisan solution, and the Democrats may not want to own Iraq but they own it now as much as this President. And that’s not a bad thing."

In short, despite the fact that this fiasco is entirely the GOP's fault, it's suddenly convenient to spread the blame and the responsibility around. And you can see this new talking point on glorious display here.

I think we all pretty much agree that the justification for the war was very faulty. Uh, we're WAY beyond that point now. Why do you guys keep looking to the past? We have to be concerned about the present and the future.

So yeah, call it a "neocon armada" and call it an "illegal and immoral invasion" all you want. That doesn't solve anything. WE'RE ALREADY IN IRAQ. Your comments are all geared as if we're still debating whether to invade Iraq or not. But, uh....we're already there.

How about we be constructive instead of just shouting out liberal talking points? Like, for instance, how can the U.S. win? How can we stabilize Iraq and secure freedom for its people? How can we help Iraq govern itself? These kinds of issues are much more important.

You libs just don't get it.

In other words, will you Libs please stop harping on the past and whose fault it is? Somehow, we've ended up totally upside down and in flames in this ditch and it's not doing any good to dwell on the fact that it was Jake behind the wheel, and pointing that out is just wasting time, so we have to put our heads together and figure out how to salvage the situation since we're all in this together.

Expect to see a lot more of this in the coming days.SO MUCH WINGNUT CRUNCHY GOODNESS: You really should read at least the first part of the comments section at that Attytood post to appreciate the breathtaking dumbassitude of the Right, as portrayed by "Jake":

Again, I challenge all of the ultra-liberal talking heads on here to add a constructive, FORWARD-looking comment. But you guys just can't bring yourselves to do it, can you?

Instead, you blame America, you blame Bush, you blame Republicans. People, we already know that huge mistakes were made. Like I said, we're way past that point now.

AGAIN, can you come up with any independent thinking of your own as to how we can win this thing? Can you get past your blind and complete hatred of Bush for just one second to add a constructive comment?

Jake just doesn't get it, does he? It's too fucking late for that. To flog my favourite analogy to within an inch of its miserable life, you're already upside down in the ditch. At this point, you can't turn to the passenger who's been pleading with you to slow down all this time and ask, "So ... how about you stop whining for a while and make some suggestions as to how we salvage this situation?"

You can't -- the situation is not salvageable anymore. Period. So it's pointless (and hideously irresponsible) to keep harassing the "liberals" to come up with any "FORWARD-looking", constructive suggestions. It's too late for that.

The neo-cons have fucked this thing up beyond redemption, and the smartest thing the leftists can do at this point is make sure everybody knows whose fault it is.

Monday, November 27, 2006

In defending its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration of George W. Bush produced one horrifying claim after another -- Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was behind the terrorist attack of 9/11, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and they knew exactly where they were, and on and on and on. And, as we all know, every single one of these breathless claims eventually crumbled, but that's not why we're here.

Not surprisingly, as each of those claims was shown to be howlingly inaccurate, the Left predictably accused the Bush administration of lying. "Bush lied, people died" went the refrain. But the Right was having absolutely none of that, no sir.

While the claim that the President "lied" was simply not an option, numerous wanks were forced to admit that, yes, the President had, well, "hyped" or "misled" or "cherry-picked" or "embellished" or "exaggerated" or some appropriate synonym. Even right-wing firebrand Pat Buchanan categorically rejected the concept of lying, even as he admitted to a mess of allegedly lesser offenses:

" ... they cherry-picked it. They hyped. But I personally do not believe the president of the United States deliberately lied about anything... [Bush] did not lie to them. The president emphasized, cherry-picked, hyped the causes for going, and set the others aside. That's not lying.

In short, Bush's behaviour might have been sleazy and tacky and questionable but, by God, he absolutely wasn't a "liar" and that was the end of that. Which brings us to basis of this post and perhaps the first in a series of wanker challenges: What would it take for Canada's wankers to admit that their heroes in the Conservative Party are, well, dishonest sleazebuckets? And I'm going to pose this question in the context of a recent development involving the CPoC.

As you can read back here, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made some news recently with a rather astonishing claim:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hopes to eliminate billions of dollars in net debt within the next 15 years, calling it "a matter of fairness for future generations."

As many followup news pieces pointed out, what Flaherty was referring to -- something called "net debt" -- was most emphatically not the same as what most people already understood as the regular national debt:

Liberal MP John McCallum accused Flaherty of misleading Canadians by promising to tackle the net debt, calling the proposal "technically true but a gimmick."

"You are using this arcane statistic of net debt, which nobody except a few economists in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) have ever heard of," charged McCallum.

Even the Bloomberg news service clearly realized what was going on, given that a news piece they produced had that phrase significantly inside quotes:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty moved the country in that direction by pledging yesterday to buy back C$3 billion ($2.63 billion) in bonds each year, as part of a plan to eliminate the country's ``net debt'' by 2021. He also forecast combined budget surpluses of $50.1 billion over six years, according to a fiscal update released in Ottawa late yesterday.

And that same article's opening paragraph even took the time to briefly explain what Flaherty was actually talking about:

The Canadian government will seek to become the first Group of Seven nation to bring debt levels in line with assets, as it benefits from revenue windfalls stemming from the largest oil reserves outside of the Middle East.

But that's not the worst of it since, as you can read in that earlier CTV article, Flaherty seemed to clearly and deliberately confuse the two types of debt:

{Flaherty] said the total net debt currently stands at $481 billion.

That statement is simply false -- the figure of $481 billion refers to Canada's national debt. Which brings us, finally, to the challenge I'm posing to Canada's wankers: I want them to give me their opinion on the ethics and/or honesty of Flaherty's actions. Note first that this challenge consists of two parts.

First, I would like to hear from the wanker community their opinion on Flaherty's use of the arcane notion of "net debt" -- a quantity sufficiently unusual that many subsequent news pieces had to explain precisely what it meant so that readers wouldn't be confused.

One could, of course, defend Flaherty by being pedantic as hell, and parsing his claim extremely carefully, suggesting that what he was saying was technically accurate. But we're all familiar with that kind of weaseling -- where you choose your words carefully to give one impression, while leaving enough room to have plausible deniability later. So, technical accuracy aside, what do Canada's wanks think of the ethics of Flaherty's announcement?

More importantly, what do those same folks think of Flaherty's flagrant falsehood, when he claimed that Canada's "net debt" was $481 billion? You could, of course, argue that he misspoke, or something equally lame. But it's hard to swallow that possible defense given how much work he must have put into constructing the whole "net debt" scenario in the first place. One simply doesn't "misspeak" about an amount like $481 billion, particularly if one is Canada's Minister of Finance.

So there's the challenge -- I want to know what this country's conservatives think of Mr. Flaherty's ethics and honesty. And, yes, there's a reason for this.

There's a perpetual complaint that it's simply impossible to have any sort of civil, political dialogue anymore -- that neither side even attempts to listen to the other, that the opposition is hypocritical and so on. Well, this is my attempt to see just how hopeless the situation is since, based on the responses I get (if any), I think we'll get a pretty good idea whether it's even worth trying to hold a conversation.

To that end, I'm going to ask my regular (and not-so-regular) liberal/leftist commenters to refrain from commenting for the time being. I want to keep the comments section (at least for now) exclusively for those from the Right, to hear their perspective on honesty and ethics in government with respect to Mr. Flaherty.

And once we get some feedback, I think we'll be a lot closer to knowing whether there's any chance for a dialogue here at all.

HONOLULU, Hawaii (AP) -- A motorcycle officer injured last week while escorting President Bush in the islands died Sunday, police said.

Steve Favela, 30, and two other officers crashed their cycles as the presidential motorcade was traveling across Hickam Air Force Base to meet troops for breakfast early Tuesday.

While the President and the First Lady expressed their condolences upon hearing the sad news, Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly responded, "See? I told you it looked serious, and that I could have finished him off on the spot but nooooooo ..."

"All college students should be tasered on the first day of orientation to break them in, and all UCLA students should receive a weekly taser enema if overheard using the expressions 'abuse of power', 'Patriot Act', or 'civil rights' at any point in their school careers."

I give you ... the Holy Taser of Antioch.

AFTERSNARK: I'm a bit creeped out by Kathy's gleeful approval of the idea of a "weekly taser enema." Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Catholics in general are disturbingly obsessed with all matters, uh ... anal, if you catch my drift.

Hey, I'm not a great fan of the US foreign policy, either. But may I ask you a different question - what is your attitude to Americans in general? Do you feel your nation has some ties with them? Do you feel the two countries are close or do you feel the US is trying to dominate over Canada? The reason I'm asking is that we're taking a class called Canadian World, and they tell us things... I won't tell you what kind of yet, so as not to affect your own reply.

One of my favourite Dilbert cartoons, from Scott Adams' book "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel," pokes fun at a particularly weaselly debating technique which involves restating your opponent's statements using "bizarre absolutes" so that you can refute a subsequently nonsensical and irrelevant position:

Dilbert: We should add this feature to our product to make it more useful:

"Bizarre Absolute" Guy: "Are you telling me that not one person on earth will use our product without that feature?!!"

Dilbert: "You just changed what I said into a bizarre absolute."

"BA" Guy: "Oh, I change everything you say?!"

It's pretty embarrassing when you end up resembling the foil in a Dilbert cartoon, as "Kitchener Conservative" does back here when, after I complain about PM Stephen Harper's reclusive inaccessibility these days, KC replies in a bizarre absolute kind of way:

I guess what you must be saying is that Harper should run outside once a day between running the country and Question Period, so that every John Q. Protester can feel good that they can get picture taken with Harper present.

Tune in tomorrow when "KC" does his best impression of Dilbert intern Asok, who is convinced to crawl into the office ventilation system in an emergency attempt to shut down the Jeffries tubes in order to prevent an imminent warp core breach.

Back here, Kitchener Conservative seems thoroughly put out that readers just aren't getting the point of his original article, which was that it's just so tacky to interrupt a public gathering addressing cancer funding to whinge on and on about someone's indifference to the deaths of bunches and bunches of foreign people.

Normally, KC might have a point, except for the inconvenient fact that "Canada's New Government" has made it virtually impossible for the general public to protest against its policies in any meaningful way.

Perhaps that latest protest does detract from the important message of funding cancer research, but if PMS insists on perpetually hunkering down behind the doors of his protective bunker, then he really has no right to complain if his critics have to go to greater and greater lengths to get their point across, does he?

And having been chided on a regular basis for an occasional lack of civility in our blogging, we here at CC HQ have decided to respond to those complaints by putting aside our partisan animosity, and addressing a random, conservative political opinion piece with politeness, and decorum, and a fair and balanced look at the facts, and ... and ...

Jesus H. Christ, but Hinderaker is a fucking douchebag. And I say that with the utmost respect for actual douchebags everywhere.

Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.

There's also no guarantee that Republicans will pass a multibillion-dollar measure to prevent a cut in fees to doctors treating Medicare patients.

The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year but is instead punting to 2007 promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years.

Friends: Hastert Dejected, Unlikely To Serve Entire Term As "Rank And File" Congressman...

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert made history this year when he became the longest-serving Republican in that post. Now he is about to go into the books again as one of the few House speakers, and the first in almost 50 years, to rejoin the rank and file.

Defying expectations that he would immediately retire if the Republicans lost their majority, Mr. Hastert is preparing to remain in the House for at least the early months of the 110th Congress while he helps orchestrate a line of succession at home in Illinois and seeks to shape a political ending beyond his party's defeat.

Is it just me or has George W. Bush checked out of the stumbling national crisis we know as 'Iraq'?

I know his name shows up in the headlines. He's meeting Iraq Prime Minister Maliki next week in Amman. Vice President Cheney is shuttling to Saudi Arabia. And all of this is being billed as a part of a new and broader 'regional' approach to getting the conflict under some measure of control.

But I don't hear the president. Not his voice. The one thing that's been a constant over the last three and a half years is the president as the voice of American Iraq policy. Whether he's the author of it is another question entirely. But the voice and pitbull of it, always.

And yet since the election he seems to have disappeared from the conversation entirely. Like he's just checked out. It's not his thing anymore.

Playing the homophobia card in politics is not restricted to the good o’ U S of A.

It also plays well in Latvia where the new guardian of human rights in Latvia is a parliamentarian who calls gays “degenerates” and “perverts”

Tune in next week when BB accuses the government of Mozambique of appointing to the post of minister of environmental protection someone who couldn't give a crap about the environment. Oh, those wacky, wacky foreigners.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Shorter Kitchener Conservative: "For the sake of civil discourse, it's critically important that we show the maturity to eventually put issues like this behind us, and move on."

Shorter Kate McMillan: "For the sake of civil discourse, it's critically important that we never forget issues like this, and that we keep dragging them out and clubbing our opponents with them every chance we get."

Shorter True North: "When it comes right down to it, kids these days are being brainwashed with a bunch of leftist, liberal propaganda just oozing with tolerance, open-mindedness and a respect for the basic human rights of everyone else. This has got to stop."

The Florida pastor recently tapped to lead the Christian Coalition of America resigned his position in a dispute about conservative philosophy - more than a month before he was to fully assume his post, he said this week.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., said he quit as president-elect of the group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson because he realized he would be unable to broaden the organization's agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.

He hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment.

"These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," Hunter said...

Hunter hoped to revive the group by expanding its agenda to include what he called "compassion issues." He also planned to teach evangelicals how to "vote with their life," or integrate and apply their Christian values to public life.

The coalition's rejection of Hunter's approach means it is unwilling to part with its partisan, Republican roots, Hunter said.

So if the CCA wants to sink along with the rest of the Republican whackjobs down south, I think it's incumbent on us compassionate liberals not to just stand idly by. Rather, it's incumbent on us to throw them an anchor. A large, heavy anchor. And perhaps hold their heads underwater until the bubbles stop.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Remember how I warned you how Troglodyte Central was going to try to be, well ... funny. (And by "funny," I didn't mean a Katherine Harris, "We're going to win this election in the end" kind of funny. I mean, allegedly amusing.)

Before you all go getting woodies over the CPoC's suggestion that they can wipe out the federal debt within 15 years, you might want to read the fine print more carefully. On Thursday, we heard this from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (all subsequent emphasis added):

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hopes to eliminate billions of dollars in net debt within the next 15 years, calling it "a matter of fairness for future generations."

He said the total net debt currently stands at $481 billion.

However, further down in that article, we read the disquieting clarification:

Liberal MP John McCallum accused Flaherty of misleading Canadians by promising to tackle the net debt, calling the proposal "technically true but a gimmick."

"You are using this arcane statistic of net debt, which nobody except a few economists in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) have ever heard of," charged McCallum.

Flaherty's figure of $481 billion includes both federal and provincial government debt, minus assets like the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan.

Tune in next week when Adam leads us through the intricacies of PM Stephen Harper's proposal for a constitutionally-sound state of "nationhood" for Quebec: "Whoo hoo!! Does Stephen Harper fucking rock or what!?!?"

BY THE WAY, I'm hoping that you noticed that Flaherty simply lied in that first article:

[Flaherty] said the total net debt currently stands at $481 billion.

That's just crap. The current federal debt is around $480 billion, making the net debt considerably smaller. If you need any proof of the difference, let me predict that what you'll hear from now on is Flaherty making promises to wipe out only the net debt, while promising only to reduce the federal debt.

Need proof? How about this article from today's London Free Press, where you can see for yourself how carefully Flaherty is now choosing his words (emphasis added):

Releasing a fall economic and fiscal update, Flaherty unveiled a 15-year plan to devote $3 billion and all surplus proceeds to pay down the federal debt.

Not "eliminate." Simply "pay down." Flaherty initially tried to bluff his way through this, and he got busted. Just what Canada needs: A federal finance minister that's a lying douchebag. Did anyone seriously expect anything better from this lot?

For good or evil, George W. Bush will have to cross the Rubicon on judicial nominations, politicized indictments, Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the constant frenzy of the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party — and now march on his various adversaries as never before. He can choose either to be nicked and slowly bled to death in his second term, or to bare his fangs and like some cornered carnivore start slashing back.

I'm fairly sure that's not the look Hanson was going for. But I'm guessing it's the best he's going to get.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

(CC News) -- In a move clearly designed to steal the spotlight from the Bloc Quebecois, Canadian PM Stephen Harper announced that he was prepared to recognize the province of Quebec as a "nation," as long as they didn't take that to mean, you know, a real nation. In addition, Harper also vowed to stand by his "promise" related to same-sex marriage, as long as no one insisted that it be treated as a real promise.

In unrelated news, the Catholic Church announced that they would be more accepting of gays as long as those folks weren't, you know, too gay.

At a breakfast meeting with reporters, Gen. James Conway also warned that it could take years to adequately train and equip the Iraqi security forces — longer, perhaps, "than the timeline that we probably feel ... our country will support."

"This is tough work, it doesn't happen overnight," and patience by the American people will be needed, he said.

And at the risk of this sounding like sour grapes (which it really isn't), while everyone is basking in the glow of the first round of voting over at Robert McClelland's 2006 CBA Awards, I'm going to drop a metaphorical turd in the punch bowl by asking, in my best bewildered Stewie Griffin, "What the hell, man?"

Quite simply, I need someone to explain to me how the blog "Raymi the Minx" ended up an absolutely runaway leader in the categories of "Best Blog" and "Best Personal Blog" and was second only to Rick Mercer in the "Best Humour Blog." Actually, never mind -- I know how stuff like this happens. Forget I asked.

Sorry, Robert, but, if this is where the CBA Awards are going, you need to rethink this whole thing in a big way. When countless, truly worthwhile Canadian blogs can get trounced by someone who blogs in utterly vacuous, 12-year-old Valleyspeak, you have a real problem.

Sometimes, you almost feel guilty about taking the credit for being this prescient (emphasis added):

Yes, by George, the GOP almost had this thing in the bag, the insurgents were in their last throes, a bunch of desperate "dead-enders" and all, and along come the Democrats who threaten to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but that's all right as long as George W., in the spirit of co-operation and bipartisanship that he's famous for, reaches across the aisle and stabs Democrats in the eyeballs with his veto pen over and over, after which Iraq will, as a consequence, turn into another Vietnam, which will, naturally, be all the Democrats' fault.

SHAYS: Well, the problem is we’re a divided nation. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis and we’re gonna have to find a bipartisan solution, and the Democrats may not want to own Iraq but they own it now as much as this President.

But of course. Having been treasonous, "cut-and-run", cowardly, troop-hating, terrorist-loving, obstructionist scum all this time, the Democrats are suddenly full partners in Operation Mideast Clusterfuck.

Yes, and after I had too much to drink and drove totally recklessly (ignoring all your pleas to slow down and let you drive) and we're now lying in the ditch upside down, I'm going to let you take the wheel and, oh man, we are both so fucked when Mom and Dad find out what we did.

In spite of Thomas Huxley's thoughtful advice that "one should never occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once," we're going to give Proud to be Canada's Biggest Dumbass Joel Johannesen's crumpled, bleeding form a couple more swift kicks to the happy sack, at which point we will consign him to the dustbin of history where he belongs. (Well, we might hold something back for one more kick, but that will be your Christmas ... whoops, I mean holiday present from me, at no extra charge.)

Surprising to not one single soul who is even remotely in search of the great book “GODLESS”, Ann Coulter’s latest (of five) huge best-sellers; or the great thinker Mark Steyn’s best-selling book “America Alone”; or, say, Bill O’Reilly’s huge best-seller “Culture Warrior”, the Chapters - Indigo “Christmas” catalogue, which they call their “Holiday Gift Guide 2006” is out, and it features none of them, nor virtually any of the other huge best-selling conservative-tolerant books of late. Left-wing books? Oh yes of course.

... In a perhaps unwitting nod to the “big ideas” of the right, if indeed they have any at all according to “Heather”: a book by Niall Ferguson is offered, called “The War of the World”. It is the only one of 13 books in the spread.

Note carefully the fundamental flaw in Joel's petulant outburst: his entire column is based solely on Chapters' Holiday flyer, and nothing more. There's nothing that says you can't purchase the latest ignorant piece of swill from Steyn, or Coulter, or O'Reilly, from Chapters. Not at all. Joel is basing all of his hyper-ventilating whinging on the necessarily limited selection that Chapters has chosen for its flyer, and if that chain chooses to slant leftward for its Christmas promotion, well, that's their choice, isn't it? But wait -- there's so much more.

While Joel seemed happy to shriek about liberal bias and related idiocy like that, your humble correspondent (uh, that would be me) decided to actually run a little experiment, so I hied myself hence to the local Chapters store in Waterloo to see for myself the hideous discrimination against what passes for deep thought in Joel's social circles.

I walked in the front door. I didn't even make it to the stacks.

Right there, directly off the main aisle, under the prominent banner reading "Books with Buzz," I found Steyn's recent magnum dopus, "America Alone." And not just one copy, oh no -- five copies, all stacked neatly on the top shelf, right in the middle -- absolutely prime bookstore real estate if there ever was such a thing. Oh, yeah -- there's some serious left-wing bias going on here, Joel. But wait.

It gets better since, leaving the "Books with Buzz" section, you run smack into the main display -- centre aisle -- under the banner "Big Ideas, Current Events." And you'll never guess what you find there. No, really, go ahead ... guess. All right, fine -- I'll tell you.

More Steyn. That's right -- it's not enough to give Steyn prime shelf space at "Books with Buzz," but he's given a position of prominence in that second location as well. Damn that Heather Reisman! Damn her and her grotesque bias! But it doesn't end there, as you look around at the other selections in that same display, where you find (and I am not making any of this up) those five additional copies of Steyn, a half-dozen of the new John Ashcroft crud "Never Again," a sizable stack of conservative Hugh Segal's "The Long Road Back" and (I'm sure you saw this coming) a small pile of Ferguson's "The War of the World" (with a "Chapters Recommends" sticker on it, no less).

Hard to believe, isn't it? Joel has wasted God knows how much time and strained all eight of his brain cells venting about that nasty left-wing bias at Chapters, when a five-minute trip to the local store was sufficient to demonstrate how utterly full of shit he is. And all of the above represents just what you can buy off the shelf. (And, as I said, this was all at the front of the store, in the promotional displays. I never even bothered to head back to the stacks. I figured I'd made my point.)

You can, as I'm sure you realize, also order anything you want from Chapters online, which means Joel doesn't even have to drag his sorry ass off of the Cheeto-stained couch in his parents' basement to get whatever he wants delivered right to his door. But that wouldn't be any fun, because then it wouldn't give Joel the excuse to bitch and whine and moan about how everyone's out to trample the intellectual freedom of him and his mentally-defective collection of groupies over at his hermetically-sealed web site.

In any event, I think we're done with Joel Johannesen. I see no point in wasting any more snark in his direction. Frankly, I don't know if he's actually the stupidest conservative in the entire country but the thought of anyone even dumber just gives me the creeps.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that Joel aspires to rise to the level of low-hanging fruit.NOT SURPRISINGLY, pro-fetus whackjob Suzanne shows up at Adrian's place and proceeds to perform a particularly ugly abortion on simple logic:

I think Joel Johansson is expressing Free Speech by banning someone. He is perfectly entitled to do that.

Why, yes, Suzanne ... Joel is perfectly within his rights to ban whomever he pleases from his web site. But if he does, he is not entitled to then bitch about others doing precisely the same thing. That's called "hypocrisy," Suzanne -- I'm sure you're familiar with it.

BY THE WAY, you have to like Steve's reference to Ambrose's performance before committee, where she brandished an alleged list of Canadian purchases of international carbon credits -- a list which magically vanished when people wanted a closer look at it.

Let's see -- publicly touting a "list" that vanishes into the ether ever so conveniently ... why does that sound suspiciously familiar?

P.S. By the way, Kate, when you're publicly gushing over someone and practically offering to have his litter, you'd sound less like a gibbering buffoon if you could at least spell his name correctly. Really, it's not that difficult. I got it after just one try.

BONUS TRACK: For more Hanson hero worship, wander over here and check out the comments. But don't blame me if you lose your lunch.

Oh, dear. Someone better get Joel Johannesen some nails and a large piece of wood so he can exercise some self-martyrdom.

As I read it, Joel is all bent out of shape because Chapters-Indigo is, in its Christmas flyer, emphasizing books for your non-brain damaged loved ones. Apparently, the fact that that company is "owned by liberal-leftist Heather Reisman" should in no way give her the freedom to decide what she chooses to promote for the holiday season.

(And, after all, what better gift to find under the tree on Christmas morning than Ann Coulter's ignorant, scientifically-illiterate, hate-filled screed "Godless"? The lost Yuletide opportunity almost brings tears to your eyes, doesn't it?)

Of course, it's amusing that Joel, who thinks others have some sort of moral obligation to accommodate him by being fair and balanced, is the same guy whose blog registration requirements would make some of you feel ... well ... less than welcome.

Come on, Joel. Don't be petulant. It's the Christmas season. Have some cheese with that whine.

Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.

There's also no guarantee that Republicans will pass a multibillion-dollar measure to prevent a cut in fees to doctors treating Medicare patients.

The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year but is instead punting to 2007 promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years.

I'm thinking that describing them as "childish" would be an insult to children everywhere.

Over here, Ed Hollett draws our attention to a dicey issue these days -- as a blogger, is you or is you not a "journalist?"

Correct answer: you isn't, unless you grant that every idiot with enough smarts to sign onto Blogger is now a "journalist," which would logically imply that Steve Janke is a "journalist," and that's a concession that's just miles outside my comfort zone.

A restaurant in the south-western US state of Arizona that proudly admits to trying to finish off its customers has introduced a new item on its menu - the "quadruple bypass burger".

The burger at the Heart Attack Grill restaurant is stacked with four beef patties, cheese, onions, tomatoes and fried bacon and weighs in at 8,000 calories - more than three times what the human body needs in one day.

I mean, is that hysterical or what? Who, I ask you, wouldn't see the humour here? Well, all right, maybe her:

Yeah, she might not be laughing out loud, but I'll bet she's still smiling inside, right? Right?

Sources tell us disgraced ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) ended his stay at a rehab facility in Arizona that treats alcohol addiction as well as sexual addiction and compulsion before he headed back to Florida to attend the funeral of his father.

Sure ... 49 days to deal with alcoholism and a lifelong attraction to teenage boys. Sounds about right.

But UCLA police are allowed to use Tasers on passive resisters as "a pain compliance technique," Assistant Chief Jeff Young said in an interview Friday.

Under UCLA policy, Young said, officers can use the weapons after considering the potential injury to police and to the individual as well as the level of resistance and the need for prompt resolution.

Young described Tabatabainejad as a "passive resister" who refused to cooperate with officers. He acknowledged that the student didn't actively resist the officers.

I'm thinking one of those babies could come in handy when I'm stuck behind yet another nimrod in the line at Tim Horton's: "I'd like a medium ... no, make that a large ... and a decaf, no, wait, half regular, half decaf and a muffin, um, do you have any fat free, no, i don't like blueberry but ... YEEEEEEEARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!"

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Cost of initial attack: A bunch of airline tickets, some preliminary flight school training, a whack of box cutters and 19 volunteers who are now spending eternity with more virgins than is probably healthy.Cost of utterly unproductive response: Over half a trillion dollars, almost 3,000 lives and counting, military readiness, national security, the House, the Senate, worldwide goodwill and any chance for peace in the Middle East.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is playing with fire when he suggests that Republicans will deploy the so-called "go nuclear" option to prevent Democrats from using filibusters to block controversial judicial nominations expected to reach the floor in mid-to-late February, says congressional expert Steven S. Smith

The Senate's next Republican leader issued a veiled threat to block action on legislation if Democrats refuse to allow confirmation votes on President Bush's troubled judicial nominations.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become minority leader Jan. 4, told the conservative Federalist Society Friday not to feel bad about the Senate election results because Republicans will hold 49 seats in a body that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and bring legislation or presidential nominees to a final vote.

Oh, Lord ... Canada's own Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck channels Adam Daifallah. It's way too early in the morning for that kind of bad craziness.

BY THE WAY, it's always possible that Kate's self-congratulatory stroking might be a wee bit premature, given that the book she's crowing about isn't scheduled for release until November 24. Is it normal for someone to wax this sanctimonious over something they haven't even read yet?

And maybe, just maybe, it's worth spending a few minutes online, where one finds cautionary pieces like this:

Yet, the apple tends to fall, in all giving, pretty close to the tree. Yalies give to Yale, preps to their prep school. Educated money to the arts and cultural institutions that provide services that donors use and appreciate. The believer gives to his or her church or house of worship. The church may be in a good part of town, surrounded by big houses. The pet lover endows a home for poodles. The athlete a stadium. And on and on.

Yes, it would be interesting to see just where all that vaunted conservative charity is going, wouldn't it? Maybe, as the first commenter suggests, this is where some of those "qualifiers" have been dropped.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? Hell, no. It would be irresponsible not to.

You didn't even follow that Blogging Tories link, did you? Have I become that predictable? Lord, you people can read me like a book.MORE RIGHT-WING "HUMAN RIGHTS" CRUNCHY GOODNESS: Really, I could milk this for years, couldn't I?

Given this and so many other examples over the years from across the Anglosphere, it still amazes me how many people still associate support for human rights with the political Left, when the complete opposite is true. It's frustrating.

Noting that every five seconds, a child under the age of five dies from hunger or hunger-related diseases somewhere in the world and the world already has the capacity to feed twice its current population, the resolution called for a response to food crises across Africa.

In favour - 175 countriesAgainst - The United States.

The U.S. representative explained that he had difficulty with the concept of food as a right...

Oh yeah. And Canada abstained from recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, making this the first time Canada has not supported the resolution.

When I grow up, I wanna be a big-time, right-wing pundit like Adam. It looks easier than actually having to know stuff.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

(CC NEWS) -- In a shocking reminder of the old days of the Cold War, Canadian authorities arrested a suspected Russian spy as he was about to board a plane out of the country.

The man, who had been living in Canada under the name Paul William Hampel, was taken into custody on Tuesday at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Dorval, Quebec.

According to Canada's Minister of Justice and Attorney General Vic Toews, Hampel, under interrogation, admitted to having been sent to Canada to snoop on "Canada's New Government" and steal any information related to the Conservative Party of Canada's new policies on women's rights, gay tolerance and environmental protection.

Toews suggested that, given the severity of the crime and the inherent value of the data collected by Hampel, he was recommending a sentence of 10 days in prison for Hampel, to be served on alternate weekends and followed by 100 hours of community service. Hampel's lawyer, horrified by the unfairness of the sentence, has already promised to appeal.

Canadian security officials are still uncertain how Hampel planned on smuggling the stolen information out of the country and continued to search his luggage for high-tech items such as microdots and encoded data but found nothing out of the ordinary, although they admit being puzzled by the presence of both a postage stamp and a shaving brush.

Shorter Dr. Roy: "So, if by 'internecine fighting' we mean one disgruntled hack who happens to be married to a high-level GOP operative, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."

Shorter Adam Daifallah: "So, if you ignore our gutting the Status of Women Canada and the Court Challenges Program and our rampant racism and homophobia, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."

Shorter The Politic: "So, if someone wants to explain what my interesting point might be, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."

Well, my view of Europe in 20 years' time is that you'll be switching on the TV, you'll be looking at scenes of burning and conflagration and riots in the street. You will have a couple of countries that are maybe in civil war, at least on the brink of it.

Good thinking, Mark -- make predictions 20 years out. 'Cuz if they're any closer, well, stuff like this tends to happen, know what I mean?YOU KNOW, one can generally respond to anything by Mark Steyn by referring simply to his Wingnut All-Star bio page, leaving it at that and moving on to more pressing topics. As Thomas Huxley once said, "Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once."

But we'll still check in on Steve Janke once in a while, anyway.BY THE WAY, it's amusing to watch interviewer Hawkins and interviewee Steyn continually refer to other ethnic groups and their "breeding," as if those groups were collections of prize show dogs or something:

Hawkins: Mark, here's the $24,000 question: can you give us a quick rundown on the reasons why Europe's birth rates have plummeted?

Steyn: Well, I think it's true as countries get wealthy, birth rates decline and that's true around the world even in Muslim cultures. For example, more advanced Muslim societies such as those little wealthy Gulf Emirates, they breed less than they do, say in Somalia or in Pakistan or Yemen...

Hawkins: Now, here's an even more relevant question: is there any plausible way you can see to get them breeding again?

That's a good question. I'm thinking maybe lightly spritzing their genitals with Axe Body Spray and letting nature take its course. If all else fails, some soft-core porn and a 12-pack of Molsons.

Hey, it works for us.GETTING SLAPPED BY THE BEST. I only this minute noticed that uber-blogger Glenn Greenwald also takes uber-dumbass Steyn out to the curb. That has to be uncomfortable for Greenwald since Steyn is pretty much low-hanging fruit even for me.